Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London County Council (Tramway Subway and Improvements) Bill,

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

Accrington Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),

Third Reading deferred till Monday next.

Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (Trolley Vehicles, etc.) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Southampton Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Weald Electricity Supply Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Wessex Electricity Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

VALUATION.




Portsmouth.
Devonport.
Chatham.
Sheerness.
Pembroke.
Rosyth.




£
£
£
£
£
£


1926–27
…
85,577
73,524
27,984
[...]6,863
8,512
36,391


1927–28
…
85,577
73,524
27,984
[...]6,863
8,462
36,508*


*Gross £36,508. Rateable Value (Rating (Scotland) Act, 1926), £29,207.


CONTRIBUTION TO LOCAL RATES.


1926–27
…
45,703
48,043
21,404
10,233
6,668
16,430


1927–28
…
47,556
49,618
20,588
10,691
7,265
14,158

INVALIDINGS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA asked the First Lord of the Admiralty in how many cases

Orders of the Day — EASTER BILL.

(CHANGED FROM "STABILISATION OF EASTER BILL.")

As Amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Date of Easter Day.)

Commander WILLIAMS: I beg to to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the word "second" and to insert instead thereof the word "last".
The effect of this, with consequential Amendments to omit "April" and insert "March," would be to bring the date of Easter earlier than it is at present. My object is to split up the Easter and Whitsun holidays, which are of great importance to great masses of people, as nearly as possible between Christmas and the August Bank holiday. I fully realise that there are very many objections to this from several points of view, especially from the Church, and that there are some authorities who consider that the second Sunday in April would be better than approximately 31st March, but on the other hand it is only right that we should consider the pint of view of those who use Easter not so much as a Festival but as a holiday. I am leaving the point of view of the Festival absolutely out. I am looking at it for the moment from the point of view of the holiday, and I think it would be well to fix the two intermediate holidays between December and August as nearly as possible in the middle of that period. If you can have Easter approximately at the end of March, you have a very full three months between Christmas and March, and, even with my Amendment, considerably less than three months between Whitsun and the August Bank holiday. For that reason it is worth discussing whether in fixing this date, you should not have it earlier even than the great improvement brought in by the Bill as it is at present. An objection which was raised in Committee again and again to making Easter earlier is that we should have a good period of weather at the time of the Bank Holiday. In the West country the tendency is to have particularly good
weather at the end of March, and very often you get a less favourable period afterwards in comparison with the rest of the country. In the South and West of England we have an enormous advantage oven other places and I do not see why occasionally our point of view and our natural advantages should not be considered. Apart from that, the main object of the Amendment is to split up the time in such a way as to make it easier for those who have to engage in these long periods of work. I fully sympathise with the position of those who think it impossible from an entirely different point of view. I have no wish to hurt their feelings but I am simply putting forward a point of view which I think ought to be expressed.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I think the Amendment shows the difficulty there is in this Bill as at present drawn in fixing any particular date. If the assumption is that a lot of people in this and other nations are to be consulted about the date, it surely is objectionable to do what the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests and fix a particular date in this first Clause. I thought, from what the Mover of the Bill said, that the date in the Bill was the date which was most likely to find acceptance with the various persons who are promoting it, and there are Amendments by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) which, I understand, will raise the question whether, if you are going to give power to fix a date at all, that date should be fixed in the Bill or should only be fixed after consultation with various bodies. If the Amendment is not competent to produce that result, I myself have put down an Amendment, with the support of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman), to that effect. In any event if you are going to have a date, I understood the date on which all discussions and negotiations have gone on so far is the date contained in Clause 1 of the Bill. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had moved this as a wrecking Amendment it would rather appeal to me, but I do not believe that is the case, That being so, from his own point of view, if the Bill is to go through at all, it will be better to have the date which
has been provisionally agreed by certain people rather than a date which the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to have obtained out of his own inner consciousness. Therefore I hope the Amendment will be rejected.
I cannot sit down without drawing attention to the fact that what I have always feared is made abundantly clear by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech, and that is that what is really moving the promoters of the Bill is far more the question of when we shall have holidays, and not when we shall have Holy Days, and his argument that there should be a considered period between Christmas and Easter and so on all shows that the driving power that is behind him, and I rather fear behind the promoters of the Bill, is the secular consideration of Easter rather than the religous one. In any event, we shall have a further opportunity for discussing this question, and I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted by the House.

Captain BOURNE: I cannot oblige the House by accepting this Amendment. As the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) has just said, the date in the Bill is one which has been arrived at after very extensive examination and discussion by the League of Nations after consulting all the countries in the world. The one thing we cannot do, if we do fix Easter, is to fix it solely for considerations either of the home climate or of the climate of any part of our country. The general opinion of those who support the proposal—and they include religious bodies, commercial bodies, educational bodies, Governments and others—is that the most suitable date for Easter is the second Sunday in April, but both the Roman Catholic and the Anglican Church raised objections to that date, because, once every seven years, it will result in the feast of the Annunciation and Passion Sunday coinciding. Therefore, the present date was agreed to as a compromise in order to avoid that particular thing occurring. I think the date is probably the best that can be chosen. When one of the subsequent Amendments put down by the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds is reached, we can go into that point, but I cannot possibly advise the House to accept the Amend-
ment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay (Commander Williams).

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(Short title, commencement, and extent.)

Lord HUGH CECIL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the words "a draft thereof," and to insert instead thereof the words:

"(a) a Secretary of State shall certify to His Majesty that he has ascertained that the proposed appointment of a fixed date for Easter will be generally acceptable to Christian people throughout Christendom and is approved by the Convocations of Canterbury and York and the National Assembly of the Church of England; and
(b) a draft of the proposed Order."
This Amendment is really only to carry out what the Home Secretary said he would actually do on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is, I think, common ground with everybody that those words were used in supporting the Bill. It is not at all desirable to alter the principal Christian feast of Easter except with the approbation of Christian people, and it is very desirable that that approbation should be the same all over the world. We have one date for Faster and the French have another. Therefore, what is intended to be achieved by the Amendment is common ground. No one doubts that it is desirable that the fixing of a date should be generally reasonable to Christian people, and that that date should be approved by the authorities of the Church at home. Accordingly, there does not seem to be anything in the Amendment which differs from the purpose of those who are in charge of the Bill. They desire to have an Easter acceptable to Christian people. They desire to have an Easter approved by the authorities of the Church of England. There is no reason to suppose that, as far as the Church of England is concerned, they have not already ascertained that the Archbishop of Canterbury does not disapprove of it. Therefore, it is a most seemly and proper thing that their approbation should be officially stated. It does not seem to me that the Bill, as it is at present framed, is quite decorous, if I may say so. It is hardly conceivable that when you are dealing with the great Christian feast there should be no men-
tion at all of the Church of England. I submit that this will not make any substantial difference to the, purpose which the Members in charge of the Bill have in view, but that it will be decorous by recognising on the face of the Bill that Easter is a Christian feast. This Amendment is a perfectly simple one and carries out what the Home Secretary said he is prepared to do if the Bill passes.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I assume that in the Noble Lord's Amendment the phrase
generally acceptable to Christian people throughout Christendom
would include the Free Churches of England and Wales.

Lord H. CECIL: Yes, certainly.

Mr. BROWN: Since I assume that this Bill will apply to Scotland equally with England and Wales, ought not this also to include the Church of Scotland, which, of course, is the Established Church in Scotland. I desire to raise the point, and, if the Noble Lord agrees that it is material to the Amendment, I shall ask him to add it to the Amendment.

Mr. LEE: May I suggest that the Amendment should stop at the word "Christendom." Surely, by "Christian people" it is meant that all Christian people are affected, the National Assembly of the Church of England and the Free Churches as well. You may have objections to the Amendment if it is allowed to stand as it is.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): This Amendment is practically a repetition of the Amendment which the Noble Lord moved during the Committee stage of the Bill.

Lord H. CECIL: Not quite.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I said "practically a repetition." I gather that his object is to assure himself that before a fixed Easter is settled the ecclesiastical authorities shall give their approval, and he wishes to insert words to that effect in the Bill. There are several serious objections to that proposal. One of them is that if you are going to give the power to the Secretary of State to
negotiate on this question—which you are going to do, and which he stated on the Second Reading he contemplated—you are obviously tying his hands, for the people with whom he is going to negotiate know all the time that they have a rower of veto. You might as well really not carry out any negotiations at all. Therefore, I do not think that it is at all desirable that these words should be inserted.
There is an even stronger reason, and that is, that the House itself is definitely retaining unto itself the power to bring this Measure into operation by passing a Resolution. The House represents the nation and the nation is a Christian nation—at least we hope so—and the head of the Church is the King. Parliament in this matter is and must be supreme, and you cannot say that Parliament's power of decision is to be fettered in one way or the other. After all, if the House of Commons considers that the Secretary of State of the day, whoever he may be, has not taken proper steps to consult either this ecclesiastical authority, or this Church or that Church, members have the power in their own hands in refusing to bring the Measure into operation. You cannot take away that power, and to suggest that that power should in any way be modified is, in my opinion, suggesting that the House of Commons is incapable of carrying out the functions which are placed upon it. Therefore, I cannot recommend the House to accept the Amendment.

Sir H. SLESSER: I regret, speaking for myself that the Under-Secretary cannot accept this Amendment. His last argument would apply to any proposed legislation. It is true that in a matter of civil law Parliament is the final authority, but if Parliament likes to say that it will only entrust a particular executive officer with a power, or will itself not make an Order unless it is satisfied that the executive authority has been properly informed on the matter, surely Parliament can do that just as well as anything else. It is a question entirely of what Parliament wishes to do. If we pass this Amendment, and Parliament thinks it wise so to do, it is just as much exercising its sovereignty in passing the Amendment as it would be in refusing to pass the Amendment. Therefore, any
argument based on the sovereignty of Parliament can touch the question one way or another.
What is the reality of the case? The Noble Lord has pointed out, and it is true, that this Bill, which is a Bill to alter the date of what has been described in these debates as one of the most holy festivals of the Church, does not refer in any of its Clauses to any church or to any Christian authority of any kind. If we read this Bill from the beginning to the end, there is not a single referencce to any Christian authority, the Church of England, the Free Churches or any other church or any religious opinion whatsoever. It is said that Parliament can always ask whether the Secretary of State, in asking for the adoption of the Order, has or has not acted upon sufficient information to justify his action, but I think even those of us who have not been in this House very long will not place too much reliance upon the protection of Parliament in merely seeing that a resolution was or was not approved. What does this provision say? It was not in the Bill originally: it was a provision which I got inserted in the Bill, given by way of concession. The Clause says:
… and the Order shall not be made unless both Houses of Parliament by resolution hare approved the draft.
It is no derogation of the powers or discretion of this House to say, in a provision of this sort, that a Resolution that the draft Order be approved is not the sort of occasion when we can rely upon the House to give that close and careful attention to such a critical matter as the alteration of the date of Easter. It is a matter which may be raised late in the evening, when most hon. Members have gone to their beds. Draft Resolutions are approved in all sorts of ways. A draft Resolution brought forward by a Secretary of State is made a matter of party discipline and if the Secretary of State recommends that the Resolution be carried, no doubt in an ordinary case the Party Whips would be put on.

Sir V. HENDERSON: The hon. and learned Member has no right to make that statement about my right hon. Friend.

Sir H. SLESSER: The Under-Secretary must not misunderstand me. I am not making any reflection upon the present Home Secretary. It may rest with a Home Secretary who is far less interested in these matters than the present Home Secretary. I hope that we shall get away from thinking of the present Home Secretary or of the present House of Commons in this matter. We are giving power here to a Home Secretary, who in the future, I do not know to what Party he may belong, may be most unsympathetic to the opinions which underlie the conception of Easter. We are giving power to the Home Secretary to bring an Order to this House and to ask that a Resolution should be passed providing that an alteration of the date of Easter should take place. That may happen any evening under the circumstances which I have described and not under such circumstances as prevail when we are considering a Bill and carrying it through the House, and in such circumstances the Home Secretary may rely upon the Party Whips. The present Home Secretary has been known to seek the assistance of the Party Whips from time to time, and that is no reflection against him, and a future Home Secretary may make such a matter a question of Government confidence. Therefore, the reliance which we have to place upon this provision in the Bill is worth very little, without a qualifying Amendment. Why should the Under-Secretary object to our qualifying this provision?
If the House of Commons wish to know for certain before they exercise their judgment whether the consent of Christendom has or has not been obtained to the alteration of the date of Easter, why should it not have that opinion fortified by a certificate? It will give Parliament some material on which to come to judgment. The Home Secretary—I am not now speaking personally of the present Home Secretary—may not be well instructed, and Parliament—I am not now speaking of the present Parliament—may be even less instructed than the Home Secretary, and we are entitled to say that we do not want the opinion of the Home Secretary expressed but that we want to know that the matter has been properly considered by all concerned, and that the certificate is real
evidence that the authorities have consulted all those who ought to be consulted on such an important matter. Take the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). He wanted to know whether the Free Churches and the Church of Scotland were to be consulted. If we place a provision like that in the Bill, we know that the Home Secretary—who is, after all, only a Member of Parliament like ourselves and is not to be treated as sacrosanct simply because he is in the Government—as the principal officer of State concerned will be bound to go through certain processes to get certain opinions. It we put such a provision in the Bill we should know that he has consulted the Church of Scotland and the Free Churches and the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, but as the Bill now stands he might simply say: "It is convenient that this Order be made."
The grounds on which the Home Secretary might call upon the House to make the Order are not in the Bill necessarily religious grounds at all. He may argue, as I think it was argued on the Second Reading, that a change of the date of Easter was more convenient for secondary schoolmasters, or he might argue it on some ground in connection with the Federation of British Industries or something to do with the facilities provided by railway companies. There is not a word in the Bill to say that he has to consult religious opinion. Religious opinion is never mentioned. Surely, we are entitled to say that before an Order can be made, those shall be consulted who are most likely to be affected. If the promoters of the Bill and the Government would accept the Amendment, provided the Noble Lord will accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North Eastern (Mr. Lee) that the Amendment should end at the word "Christendom." I think that would be a sufficient protection. Then, we should know that religious consideration had been before the authorities and the House would know that the question of religion had been given consideration, and, what is more important that approval had been given from those sources. For all these reasons, I hope that the Amendment either as moved or as amended, if the Noble Lord can see his way so to amend it, will be accepted,
and that this Bill will not go down to posterity as a Bill for altering the date of Easter without a single reference to religious opinion.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Will the hon. and learned Member be kind enough to indicate how he would obtain, as we should all like to obtain, the opinion of Christendom on this subject?

Sir H. SLESSER: That question should have been addressed to the Noble Lord who has moved the Amendment. He has drafted it with his usual skill and has not laid down any hard and fast line. He says he is content that the Secretary of State shall certify that this date is acceptable generally to Christian people. It is like the words which we frequently get in Acts of Parliament, "regard shall be had". I think the Noble Lord had better answer the question himself.

Major BIRCHALL: I hope the Government will not accept the suggestion in the Amendment. I am opposed to it as it stands, not on the grounds urged by the Under-Secretary of State but because it will be impracticable in operation and will really wreck the Bill. How is anybody to ascertain the views which would be acceptable to Christian people throughout Christendom? It would be beyond the powers of the present most versatile Home Secretary, and I do not think we shall have anyone who will be more capable of ascertaining their opinions than the right hon. Gentleman. This Amendment, in disguise, is a wrecking Amendment. I prefer the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), which provides that before such an Order is made regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed by the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian bodies. It is exceedingly desirable that the secular authority should agree with the Christian authorities. It is not essential, but it is very desirable, and the only way to get that agreement is for the secular authority to act after consultation with the religious authorities. I do not say that they should be bound by the decision of the religious authorities or should be unable to act without their support, but I do not think it would be well to act without
consultation with them. It is one thing to consult religious authorities and quite another thing to say that you must not act without the support of Christian people throughout Christendom. I hope no Home Secretary will act without due consultation with representative bodies of Christian communities, but I do not think the Amendment would secure that and I hope it will be withdrawn.

Sir ALFRED HOPKINSON: This is an extremely ingenious Amendment. There is a useful legal maxim: Expressio unius, exclusio alterius. It is suggested that as the Bill is only to come into operation after consultation with the Church of England would not that exclude consultation with other Churches; and the suggestion has been made to include the Church of Scotland. But if we include the Church of Scotland, what about the Free Church of Scotland and the Episcopal Church of Scotland? What about the Baptist Union and the Congregational Union? We should have a long schedule if we were to include all Christian bodies whose assent might be included. That disposes completely of the second part of the proposed Amendment. Then it is proposed that the Home Secretary, before he gives a certificate under this Bill, should satisfy himself that it is generally acceptable to Christian people throughout Christendom. That is a very large order for the Home Secretary. It is quite impossible to carry it out. It will not work; and, what is more, it is not intended to work. It must not be forgotten that the matter will have to come before Parliament as provided by the Bill. The Home Secretary has not only to satisfy himself that something has been done to meet religious views but before coming into force the Bill has to come before Parliament.

Sir H. SLESSER: The hon. and learned Member says that the Bill provides that the religious opinions of some people have to be consulted. Where does he find that in the Bill?

Sir A. HOPKINSON: I did not say that. It does not say so in the Bill, but the Home Secretary will act like a reasonable man. The proposal in the Amendment is impossible, and it is known to be impossible by those who have moved it, and that assent will not be given unless
the House is satisfied on the evidence before it that the leaders of religious thought over a wide area have been consulted. The proper course for the House to adopt at the moment is not to destroy the effect of the Bill but to reject the Amendment.

Captain BOURNE: I ask the House not to accept the Amendment for the reason which so many hon. Members have already given. It places great difficulties in the way of the Home Secretary. It does not define Christendom or what bodies or sects the Home Secretary is to consult and, in fact, it is completely unworkable. If it is any consolation to the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) I shall be perfectly willing to accept the Amendment standing in his name. His Amendment does not compel the Home Secretary to consult a vast number of undefined people but lays it down that if those people officially express an opinion he shall be bound to take it into consideration. We do not want to force this Bill through against the wishes of the Church of England, or any Church, and if the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds thinks his Amendment will be a safeguard, and that the Home Secretary should receive an expression of opinion from religious bodies, I am prepared to accept his proposal.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: I hope the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) will withdraw this Amendment. There is sympathy with the object he desires to attain in all parts of the House. No one would wish, at least I cannot think that anybody would wish, that the date of Easter should be fixed by the secular authority in opposition to the views of any Christian Church, but there are enormous difficulties in carrying out the present Amendment. Apart from the fact of the difficulty of ascertaining the opinion of all Christendom, the only way of doing that would be to constitute something in the nature of a Protestant Pope, and there is no one who would be more fitted to fill that position than the present Home Secretary. But that particular office is not likely to be created under this or any other Bill. May I put this point to the Noble Lord, and particularly to the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser).
It is clear in the Bill that the assent of both Houses to a substantive Resolution must be obtained, not merely, as I thought the hon. and learned Member suggested, the assent of the House of Commons. It is stated very definitely that it must be the assent of both Houses of Parliament, and I am quite sure that as long as there is any Second Chamber in this country that that Second Chamber will contain a considerable element of ecclesiastical representatives. I have seen no suggestion for the reconstitution of another place which did not contain a certain representative ecclesiastical element. Therefore, I suggest to my noble Friend that, even if he mistrusts the Home Secretary, as I can well understand he does, and even if he mistrusts the House of Commons, still there is the refuge of a substantive resolution to be obtained from another place. For that reason I hope that the generous offer made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) to the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) will be accepted and that the Noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. TINKER: I hope the Noble Lord will not press the Amendment, which would kill the Bill completely if carried. With the Amendment incorporated it might be 1950 before the Bill would come into operation. I do not see any possible chance of getting any idea of what other people want. The word "generally" appears in the Amendment. What does it mean? Does it mean 90 per cent.? To my mind the Amendment has no logic in it at all. I was a Member of the Standing Committee and knew very well that the Bill was not very important, but it has come down to this House and, owing to that, assumes some importance, and as it has gone through Committee it ought to have a fair chance here.

Mr. HARDIE: I took part in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill and I am now surprised that the Standing Committee have not been able to do a little better with it. I am still more surprised at the terms of the Amendment. We have heard opinions expressed to-day about something being generally acceptable to Christian people throughout
Christendom. For the last two days this House I as been crowded while we have tried to come to an agreement on another point relating to Christendom, and I thought, when I saw this Amendment on the Paper, that the House would be crowded to-day by those who have been crowding it during the last two days and trying to make us believe that they were interested in the realities of Christendom. The Amendment would make it appear that we must have some form of unity before we can proceed. How are we to get this unity in view of shat took place yesterday? If it is a question of having a conspectus of the opinion of the Churches, and the general approval of the Churches, the Bill will never come into operation, for none of us will Lye long enough to see the unity that is demanded. If there is any advantage to come from the Bill it must come from the Bill's immediate application. Unless we are to have immediate application it is only wasting the time of the House to bring forward such an Amendment. I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

Lord H. CECIL: I gladly acknowledge the very courteous reception of my proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), and I recognise that what he suggests is a very substantial n ark of courtesy and recognition of the point of view that is intended to be expressed by the Amendment. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office made a much less conciliatory speech. He so deeply feels that the Home Secreary is very like Henry VIII., and he himself very like Thomas Cromwell, that he cannot miss the opportunity of portraying the character. I suggest that next time he should come down in the costume of the period, and his speech would be, as between degrees of absurdity, a little less absurd as a masquerade than as a serious contribution to debate. He would very soon find, if the Home Office gave one direction and the Church of England—Convocation and the National Assembly—gave another, which was most obeyed. The Under-Secretary does not seem to learn that conciliation is the art of carrying a Bill. Perhaps he may learn from the hon. Member for Oxford how to do it in future.
As my hon. Friend has made an offer, I am quite willing to withdraw the
Amendment. The Amendment is said to be impracticable. I had not the smallest intention of proposing anything impracticable. The Secretary of State could practically sign a certificate to-morrow, and I do not think there is any likelihood of the National Assembly or Convocation making any opposition. There is no ecclesiastical objection, on the matter of principle, to fixing a date for Easter. You may fix it at any date you please. My reason for moving the Amendment is the same as my reason for being in favour of people wearing trousers; it is a question of decency. It does not make any difference to the substance of the human figure whether you wear trousers or not, but it suggests decency. This is recognition that Easter is a religious feast.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir H. SLESSER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, after the word "modifications" to insert the words
(which modifications may include a date for Easter-day other than that in section one of this Act provided).
I think this Amendment commends itself to the promoters of the Bill. It is moved only for the purpose of facilitating the passage of the Bill. The point is this: In Clause 1 there is fixed, undoubtedly, a definite and specific day for Easter. It is admitted on all sides that this date cannot be fixed until there has been consultation with various Christian bodies and certain secular bodies outside this realm. The results of that consultation may very well produce the position that the agreed date for Easter will not be the date that is contained in Clause 1, and it may be that the promoter of the Bill had that in mind when in Clause 2 he says that the House, by resolution, may approve a draft either without modification or with modifications to which both Houses agree. If the intention of the reference to modifications is that the order may contain a date different from the date' in Clause 1, then I think the words are not apt to produce that result. In other words, Clause 1, having laid down a specific date, I do not think it would be competent by order to modify that date, and I think an order which would modify or alter the date in Clause 1 would be ultra vires the Home Secretary, because the date had already
been fixed. In order that the concession which the hon. Member is prepared to make may be a real one, if a different date be fixed for Easter, I want the Home Secretary to give expression to that with general agreement by modifying the order accordingly. Therefore, I propose, after the word "modifications," to insert the words of the Amendment, so that the Clause will then read—
The Order shall not be made unless both Houses approve the draft either without modification or with modifications, which modifications may include a date for Easter Day other than that in section one of this Act.
That would enable the Secretary of State, in making his Order, to put in a date other than that in Clause 1, if the secular authorities consented to a date other than that contained in Clause 1, and we would not have to go through the procedure of passing another Act of Parliament.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Commander WILLIAMS: If the modification had been limited to making the date earlier, I should have been very pleased, but when it comes to making the provision read so that the modification may mean the moving of the date of Easter backwards and forwards, I do not see what is the use of passing the Bill at all. If we are going to fix the date of Easter, we had better fix it. It is all very well talking about other nations, but as far as this country is concerned, I think it is very much better that we should fix the date, and say what we think is best, and allow the others to follow. We arc legislating for our own people.

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Member had risen to second the Amendment.

Lord H. CECIL: I am prepared to second it pro forma for purposes of discussion, though I am not sure that I agree entirely with it.

Mr. E. BROWN: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman) has already seconded the Amendment formally.

Sir R. NEWMAN: Perhaps the Noble Lord is a better seconder than I am, but I certainly rose to second the Amendment.

Commander WILLIAMS: I am sorry if I seemed to jump the claim of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman), which I would not dream of doing on any account. I dislike this method of legislating with reference to prospective Orders in Council. I would prefer to have laid down by an Act of Parliament a definite law. Then we should know where we are, but I dislike anything being put into the Bill which will enable modifications one way or the other to come in later. I have a strong objection to discussing Orders in Council at all, and I think legislation which merely prefaces Orders in Council is apt to be the worst form of legislation. Therefore, I disagree with this part of the Bill.

12 n.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I feel sure that the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) has put down this Amendment with a desire to assist the passage of the Bill, but I am by no means satisfied that it will do so. He will remember that during the Committee stage there was considerable discussion on the date in relation to the question of weather, arid that I produced a Memorandum from the Meteorological Office to show that, taking the average of the past 100 years, it would make very little difference whether the date fixed was a week or two earlier or a week or two later. The hon. Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) has suggested that the date should be earlier, but I gather that he is actuated by some local motives. I do not mean that they are anything in the nature of selfish motives, but, naturally, the hon. and gallant Member is sent to this House to uphold the interests of that part of the country which he represents. In reference to the weather question, it may interest the House to know that the conclusions of the Memorandum were that, taking a summary of the weather over the last 100 years, the later the date was, the better the weather would probably be, and that, if the date of Easter were fixed according to the Bill, the weather during the holidays would be neither better nor worse on the average than it would be if Easter continued to be fixed by the present methods. Therefore as far as weather is concerned it does not really enter into the question at all.
In regard to the other point raised by the hon. and learned Member who moved
the Amendment, I would remind him of what was said earlier by the promoter of the Fill, namely, that the date here proposed has been generally agreed upon by the League of Nations, and has the general approval of commercial and other organisations which have taken some interest in this question. If you are going to try to negotiate any general international and inter-religious agreement on this question, you are much more likely to reach it if you start with a definite date which is generally agreed upon, rather than if you leave the date open. If you start with a generally agreed date, various people may suggest alternatives and say that the date agreed upon by the League of Nations or by other bodies, and inserted in the Bill, is not satisfactory and that it would be better to have this or that date instead. There is, we have reason to believe, general agreement that the date in the Bill is probably the best and if you are going to try to get agreement, it is better to negotiate round a fixed date rather than round something which is nebulous. I feel the Amendment is not one which ought to be accepted and I do not think it is likely to help the object of the Bill.

Sir H. SLESSER: How can you negotiate about a date if your own Parliament has tied you down to a particular date before the commencement of the negotiations? That would be a remarkable method of negotiation.

Sir V. HENDERSON: Yon can negotiate quite well with other people by asking them whether they are prepared to agree to a definite proposal. It is much more difficult to negotiate with people if you proceed by asking them whether they are prepared to agree to any of several alternative proposals. The hon. and learned Member knows as well as I do that if you go to an individual and say "Are you prepared to consider a particular and definite proposition" and if you put various arguments before him you may get him to agree in due course; but if you say to him "Are you prepared to agree to any of several alternatives" you are not likely to get any agreement at all.

Sir H. SLESSER: I think the hon. Member has not got my point exactly. Certainly you would negotiate on a
particular date but if the person with whom you are negotiating suggests another date and, if you have no flexibility in the Bill, then you, in your turn, will not be able to make a counter-offer. Supposing you negotiate with other people on your own fixed date. They say, "We would like to fix Easter, but we offer you the week after that." You say, "I am sorry I cannot accept that because my Parliament will not let me."

Sir V. HENDERSON: The hon. and learned Member forgets that the date is fixed because there is already general agreement on it, and if you are going to get away from that, you are going to have to rebuild the whole of the building which you have already so far erected. To please one individual who may wish to change the date, you have to displease a larger number of other people who are already perfectly satisfied. I hope the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) will not consider that this speech of mine is equally unconciliatory with my former one, because I would like to assure him that I fully appreciate the desirability of making conciliatory speeches when one sees the slightest opportunity, by such speeches, of satisfying the people whom one is trying to satisfy, but there are occasions when one realises that that is not possible. In conclusion, I would like to thank him for his very courteous reference to myself and to my resemblance to Thomas Cromwell, but I do not think, so far as I am concerned, that I am likely to lose my head, as he did.

Mr. E. BROWN: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) that I think we have in this Amendment an illustration of a difficulty. It seems to me to propose stabilisation on a sliding scale. As the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay knows, I was born at Torquay, and he and I want Easter early, but the Noble Lady the Member for Southend (Countess of Iveagh) would object. The hon. and gallant Member for Torquay and I would say that Torquay is the queen of watering places, but the Noble Lady would say that Southend is. Where we would try to fix Easter early under the sliding scale, she would want it fixed later. As that is only an illustration of the complexity of
trying to apply this Amendment, I think the Under-Secretary is right in saying that it would be unworkable.

Amendment negatived.

Sir H. SLESSER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided further that before making such draft order regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed by the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian bodies.
The purpose of this Amendment has already been discussed when the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) was being proposed. The only difference between this and his is that my Amendment merely says that "regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed," whereas his Amendment went further and asked that the Secretary of State should actually give a certificate. This Amendment seems to be valuable because it does, for the first and only time in the Bill, recognise that the various Christian bodies are concerned about the Bill. The phrase which I use is, of course, very frequently adopted when it is not desired to bind down an authority to any specific method, but it is sufficiently elastic to enable him to get that opinion, to compel him to get it, and not to ignore it. I will content myself with moving the Amendment, which I understand the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) is willing to accept.

Sir R. NEWMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. E. BROWN: I should like to be quite sure about this. Would the phrase "other Christian bodies" cover the representative churches in Scotland?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I am sorry I was not able to be here earlier for this discussion. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would realise that. I should be the last person not to pay full attention and have full regard to the wishes of the various Churches in this matter. I thought I made the point quite clear in our previous debate. That being so, I see no objection at all to the inclusion of this Amendment. I should like to assure my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford
University (Lord H. Cecil) that, although I may be in some respects—I hope not in all—rather like Henry VIII, I should prefer the comparison which he has been kind enough to make of my Under-Secretary with Thomas Cromwell, who was known as the first Lay Secretary of State, and as such we have his portrait at the Home Office. We are very proud of it; it is a very excellent portrait, and I shall be glad at any time to show it to the Noble Lord.

Lord H. CECIL: Beware of the danger of venerating idols!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I entirely agree as to the danger. To return to the Amendment, the House may be quite certain that we shall have very great regard to the opinion expressed by the Churches. I have been in consultation with the Archbishop, and he has been in consultation with the Cardinal-Archbishop of Westminster, who has communicated with His Holiness the Pope, and I think by that means and after consultation with the Nonconformist Churches, we shall be able to arrive at a friendly settlement in this matter and establish a fixed Easter. I should like to add that if there is any point in regard to the drafting of the Amendment, I will look into it.

Amendment agreed to.

Commander WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out the words "and the Channel Islands."
My real object is this: It is very seldom that we hear anything about the Channel Islands, and as it is very difficult to know what are the powers of this Parliament in connection with those Islands, it would be well if the House on this occasion could find out one or two things as to how the Channel Islands get into this Bill. I think we have some control there, but we ought to know if that control is of such a kind as would enable us to know whether they, in their turn, want this particular Clause of the Bill. I conclude that in all probability there is some connection between the Home Office and their representative body, but I should like to know whether they have actually given their opinion in connection with the fixing of Easter in this way. We ought also to know, supposing they very strongly object to the fixing of Easter, whether we
have any power of enforcing it there or whether they have any power of so getting it amended that they may come out of the Bill. I simply put these two points because we hear from time to time of curious things happening so far as the Channel Islands are concerned, in other ways, and anything that we can get in this House to elucidate their exact legal position in relation to this country, the better. It is a comparatively minor Amendment, but it is one that will give us an opportunity to deal with a matter which we very seldom have.

Mr. SANDEMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. KELLY: While I hope that an explanation will be given as to the position of these Islands, may I ask what, is the exact position of the Isle of Man and whether the House of Keys have been consulted. I am concerned for my friends it that particular Island and my namesakes, many of whom are in that place.

Sir V. HENDERSON: The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are, for administrative purposes, both under the Home Office, and, therefore, it is quite proper that the Secretary of State should be the channel of communication, so far as they are concerned. It is obvious that my right hon. Friend or his successor would consult with the representative bodies of these Islands on this question.

Mr. KELLY: Before the Order in Council or afterwards?

Sir V. HENDERSON: Obviously, before the Order, in the ordinary routine of administration. I do not say that he has done so at present, because he cannot start a consultation of that kind until there was some idea that the Order was to become law. It would be a waste of time.

Mr. KELLY: That would make it an accomplished fact.

Sir V. HENDERSON: No, it does not make it an accomplished fact until it is passed by the Resolution of both Houses. The hon. Member will see that in Subsection (2) of Clause 2. To carry on consultations about a hypothetical subject which might never become anything except hypothetical, would be quite unnecessary, and I am convinced that, if
the hon. Member is ever in the position of being the Secretary of State, he will realise it.

Mr. KELLY: I am not looking in that direction.

Sir V. HENDERSON: There is another point, which is more important. If this Amendment be accepted, and this Bill comes into operation, we should find the Channel Islands with a different date for Easter than the rest of the United Kingdom.; and as the Channel Islands depend for their prosperity very largely on Easter holiday traffic, they would lose very heavily. I am convinced, therefore, that the proposal is one which would be most unpopular in the Channel Islands, and I hope that the House will not accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir H. SLESSER: I have always thought that this Bill was a mistake, though I must admit that it is very much changed from the time when it was first brought into the House. In its original form, the Bill would enable Parliament, without any further consideration, then and there by Order in Council, to alter the date of Easter. Since that time, we have received two important concessions. In the first place, it is not now possible for the Order in Council to be made without a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. In the second place, we have now definitely an assurance that before that Order in Council is made, the various Christian bodies will be consulted. Therefore, a great many of the objections, which some of us felt to the Bill when it was first promoted, have disappeared. At the same time, I feel that we are proceeding entirely in the wrong way altogether. There is nothing to prevent the right hon. Gentleman negotiating about the date of Easter or about any other subject with anybody he thinks fit, but the curious doctrine has been here laid down that, in order to negotiate with other bodies, we shall do better first of all to tie our own hands. In order, that is, to negotiate with the other countries of the world about the date of Easter, we will first pass an Act of Parliament which
will only enable us, in any event, to fix a certain date for Easter. This is the result of the rejection of one of my Amendments, and the principle that you should first pass an Act of Parliament to enable you to negotiate the date fixed by that Act of Parliament, seems to me an extraordinary one. I do not believe that there is any demand, really, to alter the date of Easter as it has existed for a thousand years. I have a great suspicion of this itch to alter any ancient institution on which hands can be laid. Easter has worked very well in the past, and I do not see why it should not work well in the future. From my short experience of the House, there is no one whom I should be less inclined to trust with the custody of ancient institutions, than the present Government. I am quite sure that this Measure will never be agreed to by the various Christian bodies which are here mentioned, and I am sure that it will never be agreed to by the other countries of the world. The point made by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) is a good one, that even if this House were foolish enough to welcome this Bill at some future date, there is another place that will reject it. I do not propose to vote against the Measure, for I believe that it is innocuous and largely impotent, though I still see objection to it in any form.

Captain BOURNE: We have all enjoyed the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), but apparently he has failed to remember that there is in existence such a body as the League of Nations, which has had this matter under discussion for many years. There is a very large demand, and a large amount of opinion in most of the civilised countries of the world for an Easter which does not migrate quite as much as the present festival, and the date put down in this Bill is a date which is nearly universally agreed. The hon. and learned Member said that the procedure of this Hill is unnecessary. Once you have agreement with the League of Nations, and between the various bodies representing different interests, the next thing you have to get is an agreement with the Governments of the civilised countries. If this Bill does nothing more when it becomes an Act of Parliament, it will at any rate lead to the opening
up of negotiations. I thank the House for the way in which they have taken up this Bill.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I did not hear the Debate on the Second Reading, but I read it very carefully, and I find that great regard was taken to the wishes and convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the wishes and convenience of the traffic managers of the railways, of foreign countries, of the Dominions, of education, of industry and of the Church, but very little has been said, in fact nothing, about the needs and desires of the people of this country. After all, this Bill is going to affect one of the holidays of the people, and a very much valued holiday.
I think anybody who, like myself, has had to concern himself with the breaking up of a frost in winter or the time for cutting one's hay in the summer, is clearly of opinion that the moon has a definite effect on weather conditions, and as the Solicitor-General pointed out in his very interesting speech on Second Reading, since the War Easter has proved to he a notably dry holiday. For the eight years the total rainfall during Easter week-end has been only half an inch, while the rainfall for the proposed Easter week-end has been 2¾ inches. It seems to me this Bill has not been sufficiently considered from that point of view. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, there is a lamentable tendency, and one which is not confined to one side of the House, towards what I would call "legislative fidgets." Because something has been established a long time, many hon. Members think it ought to be altered, and I am indeed sorry to find that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench too often countenance those things and do not rather relegate them to the schools of thought from which they spring. I do not propose to divide on this Measure, because I think it would be only a waste of time, but do wish clearly to register my own opinion that this Bill is not going to be for the general weal of the people of this country.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Before this Bill passes Third Reading, I wish to say that I regret that an Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H.
Slesser) was accepted in the form in which it was put and is to be added to the Bill. I did not take objection to it at the time, because, after the theological speeches of the past two days, it was probably inadvisable that there should be even an appearance of dividing the House, but I want to protest against the idea getting abroad that this Amendment expresses the unanimous views of the Members of the Opposition. It is stated in the Amendment that before any draft Order is made regard is to be had to the opinion officially expressed by the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian bodies, the other Christian bodies taking second, third, fourth and indeterminate rank after those other two Churches. There is at least one other National Church in the land by law established, that is the Church of Scotland, and there are Nonconformist bodies of very large membership, and I, for one, take exception to the official recognition in an Act of Parliament of only two religious bodies, the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, while the other Christian bodies are lumped together. I am not very much surprised at the hon. and learned Member moving the Amendment, but I was surprised at the alacrity with which the Home Secretary, who is usually so very careful, accepted the Amendment in the form in which it was moved.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DOGS ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Owners of dogs to be liable for injury to poultry) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Delivery of stray dogs to police).

Mr. BRIGGS: I beg to move, in page 1, to leave oat from the word "therefor" in line 20 to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"4.—(1) Any person (in this section referred to as 'the finder') who takes possession of a stray dog shall forthwith either—

1363
(a) return the dog to its owner; or
(b) take the dog to the police-station which is nearest to the place where the dog was found and inform the police officer in charge of that station where the dog was found.

(2) Where a dog has been so taken to a police-station then—

(a) if the finder desires to keep the dog he shall inform the said police office of his name and address, and the said police officer shall make out in duplicate a certificate in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State stating the description of the dog, the place where it was found, the date on which it was brought to the police-station, the name and address of the finder, and shall give one copy of the certificate to the finder and retain the other, and thereupon the finder may remove the dog, but shall be under an obligation to keep it for not less than one month;
(b) if the finder does not desire to keep the dog the said police officer shall treat it as if it had been seized by him in pursuance of section three of this Act.

(3 If the finder fails to comply with any of the provisions of this section lie shall he liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings."

This Amendment is supported by a number of those interested in dogs, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, of which the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieutenant-Colonel Moore) is a member of the Council, the National Canine Defence League, the chairman of which is the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Sir R. Gower) and the Glasgow Dogs' Home, the vice-chairman of which is my hon. Friend the Member for the Maryhill Division of Glasgow (Mr. Coupes). I will not weary the Committee by explaining it, because this is absolutely an agreed Bill.

Sir ROBERT GOWER: I wish to support the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSES 3 (Amendment of Section 6 of principal Act) and 4 (Short title and application), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (UNIVERSITY OF READING) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Representation of University of Reading in Parliament.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. E. BROWN: I think we ought to have some explanation of this Clause. Surely we ought not to be expected to grant a new privilege to a special set of voters in another University without adequate discussion. I am quite sure the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) would like to give an explanation as to what the Clause really does.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: In the Act which established the Combined English Universities to form one constituency, there was no provision inserted to include automatically other Universities which might subsequently receive a charter. Reading University received a charter a little more than two years ago, and this Bill grants to the graduates of Reading University the privilege enjoyed by other English Universities. It adds only a few hundred electors to a very small constituency of under 7,000 electors. There may be some objection to University representation as a principle, but as long as University representation exists, it seems unfair to deny to the graduates of Reading University the privilege which is at present enjoyed by other Universities. Therefore, I ask hon. Members who object to University representation on principle to allow their sense of justice to prevail and not shut out the graduates of Reading from the privileges now enjoyed by the graduates of other Universities.
I think Reading University well deserves such a privilege. It is a University full of life and progress. At one time it was a constitutent college of the London University, and when it was incorporated as a University those members of the college proceeding to a degree had the choice of becoming graduates of London University or
graduates of the newly-established University at Reading. A large majority of them decided to become graduates of the Reading University. Reading University is an excellent example to other English Universities, because it has established the hostel system, and that is one of the secrets of its success. Many deputations from other Universities have visited Reading University to investigate their hostel system, and, as a result, other Universities are establishing that system. For these reasons, I hope that the Bill will receive favourable consideration.

Mr. KELLY: An appeal has just been made to us to allow this privilege to be extended to the University of Reading, but the principle of University representation is bad, and we should not further extend the right of plural voting. For that reason, I am not prepared to extend what is bad even to the Reading University. I have never been able to understand why it is that Universities should have the opportunity of sending Members to this House when other important branches of education have not that opportunity. It has been argued that this privilege has been granted to so many other Universities that it would be an injustice not to allow it to apply to Reading. That is a very fine plea to put forward, but, when a thing is bad with regard to other places, I think we should be doing wrong by extending it. We should not be doing our duty to our constituents if we allowed that bad principle to be extended even to Reading University. For these reasons, I shall certainly oppose this Measure.

Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to join in the opposition to this Measure. I feel very strongly that it is a Measure which ought not to be passed. I am myself a University voter, and, although I am personally in that privileged position, I think there is nothing to be said in defence of it. Those responsible for the introduction of this Bill suggest that, although it may be a bad principle, one has to take account of the fact that it is there, and that it applies to other Universities. It has been argued that the graduates of Reading University should not be put in a less favourable position than the graduates of other seats of learning, but I cannot accept that as sound reasoning.
Here you have a principle that is unsound, and yet it is proposed to add to a vested interest for the maintenance of that principle. If you now add the graduates of Reading to the number of University electors, you are only adding to the force that will be in existence when the time conies for the abolition of the University franchise. Consequently, those who say that because other Universities have this privilege, we should go on extending it are in an illogical position.
The idea of the University franchise was that the people who went to Universities and received a University training would become so alert and possess so much knowledge in regard to political affairs that to give them this franchise would be a good thing for the nation, because it was thought that they would be able to give a more satisfactory opinion oil political questions than the ordinary citizen who had not had the privilege of a University education. When, however, you test it out, you find that it altogether fails, that it does not work out in that way at all. Supposing that you were to take, for example, the number of spoiled papers in elections—a very rough-and-ready means of testing—I think you would find that, in university elections, percentage of spoiled papers is higher than the average, over the whole country. Prom the point of view, therefore, of this very ordinary test, which is often applied—because, when people are discussing elections and the number of spoiled papers, these are very largely taken as a sign of the comparative illiteracy of so many of the people who are voting—even that test would seem to suggest that there is a bigger percentage of illiterates among university graduates than is common over the country.
Perhaps the assumption that a spoiled paper is due to comparative illiteracy is a false assumption, and I myself would be disposed to accept that as being the case, but that has been the general assumption. Perhaps it is due to the fact that university people are more absent-minded, their minds being so taken up with great affairs that, when it comes to the affairs of the State, their minds do not function properly. If that be true, however, it is all the more reason for not increasing the university vote, and, consequently, I am utterly opposed
to this Measure and to any such extension. I believe it to be true that a university seat in the past has offered a certain and safe refuge to a distinguished politician who for the time being has been unable to obtain the support of the ordinary men and women in an ordinary constituency in the country; but, again, I do not think that that is a sufficient reason why we should extend this form of representation, because, although some distinguished individual may have found such a refuge, I do not believe that it was really good for the country at all that he should have found it. In his period of unpopularity, it would have been better that he should not have been here, because, largely, his period of unpopularity would be due to the fact that he had become attached to some idea that was deservedly unpopular because it was absolutely reactionary.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: On a point of Order. May I ask if the hon. Member is in order in dealing with university representation generally, seeing that the Bill does not provide for separate representation for the University of Reading?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I think that the hon. Member is perfectly entitled, on a Bill which seeks to, extend university representation, to advance reasons why it should not be extended, and to introduce parallels of what has happened in the past; but, at the same time, I do not think that it is permissible for him to go too deeply into past history.

Mr. STEPHEN: I accept your ruling, Captain Bourne, with all respect, and, if I may say so, it is exactly what I myself should have considered to be possible in connection with this Measure. I do not want to make a Second Reading speech, but I have been trying to show that, if we were to extend this principle and give this privilege to the graduates of Reading University, it might well be that some politician who, owing to his reactionary policy, has been unable to find a resting-place elsewhere, might find it in connection with Reading University. I do not think that that would be for the good of the State, because let it be noted that it is always an individual with reactionary principles who finds such a resting-place. You could never, for
example, think of the possibility of Glasgow University adopting the late Mr. Keir Hardie as its candidate. It is true that he was a candidate for the Lord Rectorship, but the small amount of support that he got on that occasion shows the reactionary character of these institutions. This, therefore, would only add to the opportunities for reactionary politicians to find themselves in a privileged position. While it may be true that those Members of this House who are connected with Reading University feel that—

Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Member is unkind to his own party in saying that University Members are always reactionary. He has forgotten that in the last Parliament there was a Socialist from the University of Wales.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has drawn my attention to the fact that Wales is so much more advanced politically than the rest of the country. If Reading were in Wales, I believe that there might, be something to be said for this Measure. [Interruption.] I do not really insist that there should be any guarantee that Reading would return a Socialist, or anything like that, but I do suggest that there should be some indication that this franchise is operating to the advantage of the community, and is tending to send to the House of Commons various types of opinion that would be helpful to the country: but the Members returned under this franchise are practically all of the same type of opinion, with the exception of Wales, because the Welsh people are so much more advanced politically than those of other parts of the country.
In conclusion, I want to say this to the representatives of Reading in the House. Seeing that Reading is not in this privileged position in which other Universities are, it would be greatly to the honour of Reading if the Reading graduates on this occasion were to take their stand and say that they thought that the principle was wrong, and that, therefore, they did not desire this unjust privilege to be extended to them. At the present time, the University of Reading has no great distinctive position in any respect among the Universities of this country, but, if the graduates of Reading were to take up this position, and were to say that,
having considered the matter, they were against this extension of the franchise, because they thought that to put University graduates in a privileged position was a bad thing, then I believe that Reading University would have a very distinguished place among the seats of learning in this country. I am opposed to this extension, and I hope that the House will not agree to add to this evil of plural voting—and plural voting of the most obnoxious kind—by increasing the number of extreme reactionary opinions represented in this House.

Sir A. HOPKINSON: I would like to say that if you pass this Bill, you will not get rid of us a single day sooner. I am one of those very reactionary people who have been brought here by University representation. I do not know whether I am a strict politician or not, but it does not very much matter. I do not intend to follow hon. Members into the question of University representation. This is not the time or place. I want to put a practical point. Reading is a very democratic University. People who go there are very often people who could not afford to go to Oxford or Cambridge. They frequently attend for practical agricultural courses. The point I wish to put is this. At present there are seven Universities which return two very reactionary and terrible politicians—people of the very worst type conceivable. Supposing you put Reading in, you might turn us both out.

Mr. MAXTON: That is one of the objections to the Bill.

Sir A. HOPKINSON: And then, instead of having us, you may have something very much nicer to your order. Do not throw away the opportunity. It is there for you. On the other hand, imitate the generous attitude of my hon. colleague and myself who represent the English Universities, and back up this Bill. We are willing to take the plunge into the unknown, in order to do justice to Beading.

Mr. MORRIS: The point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Sir A. Hopkinson) is really a very valid one, namely, that while the other universities have representation, whatever may be said as to the principle, there can be no reason for excluding Reading, whatever may be the
result. Hon. Members of the Labour party have raised an objection to the principle, but the curious thing is that, although the Socialist party object to it in principle, they find it possible to contest nearly all the university seats. You may object to the principle, as I do, of university representation, but the principle is not the issue here, and there can be no reason for objecting to Reading being given the same privileges as other universities. For that reason, I support the Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: I rise to enter some criticism against this Bill, and, first, I would express my surprise that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) and one or two graduates of that seat of learning who are in this House, have not thought it of sufficient importance to be present in support of the Measure.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: May I say that the hon. Member for Reading has been called away by another important engagement?

1.0 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: There are about 600 Members of this House who, presumably, think that their engagements outside are much more important than the University of Reading Bill inside the House, and I agree. I myself am only here because I am keenly interested in the Dogs Bill, and I was misled by the usual channels—I am not suggesting it was other than an accident—into the belief that the Dogs Bill would be debated. My objection to this Bill, of course, is on the general principle that the university graduate is not entitled to any more say in the government of this country than the shipyard labourer on the Clyde. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachic (Mr. Stephen) that the university voter has not shown his capacity to exercise his vote so intelligently as the shipyard labourer on the Clyde, and has added nothing in particular to the general moral and intellectual status of this House. The hon. Member opposite brings forward as the best argument that can be used in support of the Bill that among de University Members there are one or two nice fellows. But there are nice fellows from other constituencies who have not got this special privilege. They have come in by accident for the universities. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) pointed out
that once there came from the Welsh University a representative who sat in the Labour party. That was a great exception, and I understand he was elected not so much because he was a member of the Labour party and an avowed Socialist, but because he was a man known throughout Wales for his Christian character.

Mr. E. BROWN: That is quite true, but the point was that the colleges always return reactionaries, and I should regard that party as equally reactionary.

Mr. MAXTON: That hon. Member was returned because of his eminent Christian character, and the University of Wales thought it desirable that there should be at least one Christian in this House. After he had served one term, 4 himself came to the conclusion that this was not the place for him, and did not offer himself for re-election. [An HON. MEMBER: "He fought again."] My hon. Friend made this point against the University constituencies that they showed, through the number of spoilt papers, the same lack of capacity as is shown in other constituencies. I want to give other evidence, which seems to be much worse than that which he has given. All the constituencies in Great Britain were asked to put in returns as to the alteration that would be made in the total electorate in their constituencies as a result of the franchise being extended. All the constituencies of Great Britain returned that estimate except the Universities. I see that Leith is going to be 51,000, and Bridgeton only 45,000. That means that I am going to get off a little cheaper than the hon. Member, and as neither of us pays individually, that will not be a very serious matter. In every constituency in Great Britain we are told the number, but in the case of the universities the estimated electorate under the Bill is not available. The University of Oxford, not available, the University of Cambridge, not available. The Universities of Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow and the rest cannot calculate what their electorate is going to be, and you ask us to give greater voting powers to a constituency that cannot calculate the number of its constituents, although every other constituency can do so. I know the excuses that will be made, but
surely a university, a seat of learning, with expert mathematicians, can make reasonable estimates, just as an actuary makes estimates with reference to life insurance though he cannot tell me positively whether I am going to die next year or not.
To the constituency comprising the University of Durham, the Victoria University of Manchester, the University of Liverpool, the University of Leeds, the University of Sheffield, the University of Birmingham and the University of Bristol, we are asked to add the University of Reading. I am in the constituency of the Scottish Universities. We have only four—Aberdeen, St. Andrew's, Glasgow and Edinburgh—in that constituency. I have been actively concerned in the promotion of Labour candidatures in that constituency. I am Chairman of the Labour Party which exists for the promotion of a Labour candidate in that constituency. No one who has not run such an election has any realisation of the absolute impossibility of establishing contact with the electorate. There is absolutely no possibility of candidates from the various parties becoming personally known to the constituents, and there is no really decent opportunity of the electorate really getting to know the views of the candidates. When you come to examine your voting rolls, when you come to set going all the devices that we normally use in electioneering, you find you have an elector in the Straits Settlements, you have someone running a mission in Northern Nigeria, you have someone in China, someone in Japan. Your people are scattered all over the world and all over Great Britain. They have no geographical interest in the area in which the University is centred and they have no knowledge of the problems affecting the Universities as universities.
I could see a case being made out for the University of Oxford where you have in residence a nucleus of people who are interested in universities and know the problems of universities and who are there in the geographical area in which the particular university is situated. But that is not the case with any other university except Oxford and Aberdeen. Of course their majority is widely scattered and I think, in the case of those two universities, their special interests can be very well safeguarded by the hon.
Member who represents the constituency in which the University is situated, because there is so much of outstanding interest in the area that the man who is going to be returned for the constituency must necessarily keep contact with university people and university problems. So that the only two cases where there is a constituency existing which has a special interest and a special knowledge, is adequately represented by the ordinary constituency member who comes into this House. But look at this hotchpotch, this collection of small universities. Everyone who has graduated in any one of them, right away back for 60 or 70 years, is on the voting roll and is entitled to vote in a parliamentary election and some who are not graduates as well. [Interruption.] I have some knowledge of this. I have done the electioneering. The hon. Members has only accepted the votes, and he knows that is a different story. I have run the machine, and every graduate of any one of the Universities is on the voters' roll, unless he is dead, and very often long after he is dead he remains on it. While I do not suggest that in the University constituencies that might be made use of by unscrupulous persons, it is a very objectionable thing that you have a roll that you cannot purge in an adequate way at regular periods.
We have turned out engineers, doctors, lawyers, teachers, agricultural experts, missionaries, mining experts, all sorts and conditions of men, and they have got scattered all over the globe. We have developed all sorts of new interests and new knowledge, and yet these people, we are told, must be given power to vote at a General Election as to who are to constitute the Members of this House and decide the problems of the 45,000,000 citizens of Great Britain who are not for the most part University graduates. I think it is a preposterous and a fantastic claim. It is carrying impertinence and intellectual arrogance to extreme lengths to come and ask this House at this period to give a further extension to a principle that is recognised throughout the whole country as being bad. My hon. Friend below the Gangway says we attack the principle as wrong but extend it a little further. I have that same instinct for tidiness that he has, that wants to
round the whole thing off and not leave any ragged edges; but to bring in the University of Reading and make the thing complete—I do not know that that is a sound and a right principle. Because a certain number of dogs have two tails, it is no reason why a few remaining dogs should have another tail added on.
I think, perhaps, we should be very wise to-day if we were to reject the University of Reading Bill as art intimation to the Universities generally that this vicious principle which became inserted in our public life before a number of us here were responsible for the administration of this country is not going to be extended, and that they must arrange their affairs in the future on the assumption that University graduates will get the same share in the political responsibilities of this country as anybody else, and no more responsibility than that. To add Reading complicates a position which is already electorally impossible. I say that a candidate cannot possibly be known to his constituents. He cannot possibly make then aware of his views. He is not even the representative of a party. I know that in the Scottish Universities the decision is made more by a bargain as between the medicos, the theologians, and the educationists. It is a representation of interests, not a representation of seats of learning. The medicos come out with their professional caucus and make bargains with the legal caucus, and they go to the teachers and the educationists and the clergymen to try and bargain as between these professional interests for their support. That is vicious, because the representation of this House is not based upon the principle of the representation of interests or trades.
There is a form of Government conceivable by which the people would not be representative of geographical areas and the populations therein but of trades. There is a tremendous lot to be said for a careful examination of that possibility. But certain professions have no right to use the seats of learning to have themselves put into a special position in this House to enable them to stand up and defend the vested interests of a particular profession rather than to regard the general welfare of the country as a whole. I propose to oppose this Measure, and, having regard to the fact that there is a very small House to-day and that the
Members more particularly interested are not present, I hope that the House will refuse to proceed further with the Bill.

Mr. WITHERS: I feel great diffidence in addressing this Committee on this Bill at all, as I am told that I have no business to be here, and that I am a reactionary.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. WITHERS: As I have already said, I am very diffident in addressing the Committee at all on this Bill on the ground that it has been stated that I have no business here and that I have been elected by an unbusinesslike set of people. I do not propose to deal with these points in detail, because they are outside the question. I think it right to say that the spoilt ballot papers are accounted for by the fact that we have, unfortunately, proportional representation in this voting, and, as everybody who has had any experience of it knows, it is a most difficult and perplexing thing to carry out. I have been challenged to explain how it is that we cannot estimate the number of voters that we are going to have. It ought to be understood that at Cambridge, at any rate, and, I suppose, in other Universities, we do not automatically go on the register. Everybody who wants to go on the register has to make application and to pay a fee and one cannot calculate how many people are going to pay 10s. or £1, as the case may he, in the future I hope, at any rate, that this will be regarded as some explanation of the points which have been put.

Mr. MAXTON: Are there no records upon which the University would he able to base an estimate as to the numbers in a University electorate who are willing to pay 10s.?

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: It depends whether they thought they might have the privilege of voting for the hon. Member.

Mr. MAXTON: In Scotland, we see that, everybody pays: it is £1 there.

Mr. WITHERS: I wish we could find out everybody who is entitled to pay 10s.,
but we do not know how many people are willing to pay 10s. I should be delighted if I did know. As a matter of fact, the question that has been raised with regard to University representation is one of principle. I quite agree with what the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has said. I think that there is a great deal to be said for it. When the time comes we must argue it out. We may or may not be abolished—I cannot say—but here is a case where it is proposed really to differentiate against Reading University, and it seems to me that it is not quite fair. I have no interest in Beading University except that I was asked to back this Bill on a question of principle, and, subject to that, I approve of the Bill. The principle of University representation is quite another matter, and we are not considering that to-day. It is unfair to differentiate against Reading University, and I hope that the Bill will pass into law.

Mr. TINKER: The last speaker and the hon. Member who promoted the Bill have put their case very fairly, and we could agree if this Bill only meant what they say. Speaking for myself and other hon. Members on this side, our objection is to the principle of University representation. When I became a Member of this House I was going to put the whole matter right, and I spoke to some of the officials of my party as to how it could be done, my argument being that University representation was not a fair principle; but I was told that it was far too big a matter for a private Member, and that it would have to go before the whole electorate before anything could be done. To-day, we have an opportunity of making our protest, and we could not allow this Bill to go through on the assumption that we agree to University representation. I hope hon. Members will understand that that is our position in taking objection to-day. It is simply because we want to lodge our protest, so that it cannot be said that we allowed an extension of a system in which we do not believe. I have no personal objection to hon. Members who represent the Universities, but my point is that the system is entirely wrong. It is not fair that a few people should have the same privileges of representation as a large constituency. It is on those grounds that we are taking this
opportunity of lodging our protest. When one listens to a Debate in this House and something suddenly arises which calls to one's mind a deep-rooted objection, one cannot but raise that objection. This is the time to lodge our protest, and although it may be ineffective, yet later on we can point to the opportunity which we took on an occasion like this to lodge our objection.

Mr. LAWSON: I want to add my protest to that of my hon. Friends against the system which gives two votes to a man simply because he happens to be a graduate of a University. I should have thought that if anyone should have an extra vote it should be those people who have been deprived of the opportunity of being at a University, because the result of that deprivation means that men are condemned to have shorter commons in this life and to submit to lack of opportunities. Because they have not had opportunities to study at a University, they have to do some of the most disagreeable work as well as work that gives the least return. There are masses of very able and intelligent men in the industries of this country, as in my own industry, doing disagreeable and dangerous work who, if the opportunity had come their way, would have rendered splendid service and would have been no mean adornment to the University through which they had had an opportunity of passing. I say quite frankly that rather than give two votes to the man who has had an opportunity of learning, on the assumption that he is a special type of citizen and ought to have some privilege, I would give two votes to the man who has to do the disagreeable work and the work that gives the least return.

Mr. RYE: How many would you give to the scavenger? Six votes?

Mr. LAWSON: I have not had an opportunity of being a graduate of a university, but for two years I was in a university city and the member of a college there and attended lectures in the university. Having gone to that place straight from the pit, I say, quite frankly, looking at the question as one who has sat at the feet of university lecturers, and as one who has been in this House for some years, that I think the time will come in the life of this nation when a
man will be given privileges because he is a scavenger or a miner rather than that he should be penalised because he has been deprived of opportunities for advancement. Take the great industrial areas of this country. You may go to the Black country and to my own part of the country, or to South Wales or Scotland, where great masses of industrial workers are living in congested areas, and what do you find? You find that after eight hours' work, and sometimes longer, these people are sufficiently alive intellectually to give their leisure time either to reading in their homes or to joining classes, university tutorial classes and classes of various kinds. They give all the hours of their leisure to that kind of work, and every spare penny from their meagre earnings they use for the buying of books in order to satisfy the desire of their hearts and minds and to equip themselves as good citizens. If an extra vote is to be given these are the kind of people who should receive it, rather than those who have been fortunate enough to go through a university.
With my hon. Friends, on principle, I do not agree with the university graduates having additional votes simply because they are university graduates. The principle is very bad, and I do not see why we should extend to Reading a principle which is admittedly bad. I trust the opportunity will come some day for us to challenge the whole system. This Session we have recognised the principle that women of 21 should have the vote. In all our speeches on this subject we have boasted of equality and yet to-day we are asked to strengthen an evil. We are asked to duplicate a vote, and because other universities have it we are asked to also duplicate it in the case of Reading University. This subject rather tempts one to launch out into a consideration as to what are the real values of different types of people and different classes of workers, mentally, industrially and physically to this nation, but I am not going to be lead into that line of argument. As one who at one time worked in a two-foot seam, hot, with scarcely a rag of clothing, spending all the money I could spare on books, and then going to a University city and seeing the other side of life, the leisure and the opportunities for acquiring knowledge and satisfying the desires of the mind, I say that our values
of things are all wrong and, if it is a question of the duplication of the vote, I plump for the scavenger, the miner, the railway worker and the general navvy, rather than for those who already have these opportunities. I oppose the principle of this Measure which I think is bad in essence.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: We have just listened to a very remarkable speech. We have been told very often that the exercise of the franchise is one of the highest duties and privileges of the citizen, but now we have the suggestion that the people who are entitled to the largest number of votes are those who are the least educated, whether through their own fault or not. We get this peculiar position, that the more a man or woman tries to advance themselves in life by better education the less electoral privileges they are to receive. That is a ridiculous proposition to come from hon. Members of the Socialist party, and I hope their followers in the country will recognise, on this proposition, that any advance in education is not to be desired by the citizens of this country because they will get penalised more and more. That is what hon. Members are trying to do with the University of Reading. Here we have an up-to-date college which has been formed into a University, showing progress and ambition and a desire to be of some service to their constituents, and because of this desire to improve themselves, to raise their status and become a University, you wish to penalise them. Hon. Members above the Gangway have no right to discuss the question of the plural vote on this Bill, but, having made their protest, I hope they will be satisfied and will not penalise Reading or disgrace this House by opposing this Bill.

Mr. T. SHAW: I would not have spoken in this Debate but for the last speech. The hon. Member began by twitting us with saying that we believe the franchise to be the highest privilege and duty of man and then assumed that we were objecting to the franchise. We are doing nothing of the kind. What we object to is the double franchise, a privilege to be conferred on certain people for, assumably, certain qualities they possess. We believe the franchise is one of the finest possessions a human being can have and that he should exercise it,
and we believe in it so much that we do not think one man's franchise should be better than another's. That is why we take the view we do on this matter. Another extraordinary statement made by the hon. Member who spoke last was that we were trying to penalise a man because of his efforts to get a good education; because he had made himself, educationally, fit for the exercise of the franchise. Is that strictly true? Is it not the fact that anybody with sufficient money can go to a University and, if he possesses ordinary brains, he ipso facto, becomes a graduate.
Knowing something of examination papers, I suggest that any boy with ordinary brains and ordinary industry becomes a graduate by the mere fact of having the opportunity of a University education, and the boy who does not graduate fails because he is not industrious or because he only possesses brains of a second-class order. The claim of the second vote on the basis of the good work done will not bear examination. The University student to-day has a wonderful advantage. I should be the last person in the world to deny the advantages of a university. It is quite evident, however hard a man may try to educate himself, that he must work tremendously harder than the student who has at his disposal the wealth of teaching and tradition and method which centuries of experience has learned how to concentrate knowledge in the best possible way for the use of the student. I am not denying the advantages of a university training, any man would be blind to do so. But why should a person who has had all these advantages be given an advantage over a person who has not? That is what it amounts to.
If the graduate from Oxford or Cambridge has a vote then the graduate from Reading should have a vote. But I do not agree that the graduate. from Oxford or Cambridge should have a vote and if I go into the Lobby in favour of the graduates of Reading having a vote, then, by implication, I am agreeing to the principle of the University vote. That is my position, and if my hon. Friends take the matter to a Division I have no alternative but to vote against this principle because I do not believe in it. At the same time, let me repeat for what it may be worth, that it is not out of disrespect to the universities or to education. I
should like myself to have gone to a University, and I should like to try and help every boy and girl to go there. I have no prejudice against the Universities, but it is unjust to give any man or woman in this country two votes, and it is more unjust to give two votes to the persons who already have had more advantages than their fellows.

Mr. MacLAREN: If other universities had returned to this House as able a representative as the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) we should perhaps have been somewhat diffident about going into this matter to-day. With the astuteness which characterises him, he told us that it was quite competent for us to make our protest but it would mark out Reading University if we did not accept the proposals of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T, Shaw) scarcely put what we want. It is not only that we are making our protest against an extension of the principle at all. What is the constitutional advantage of extension of the principle? Universities have never shown that they have any very sound political judgment when they have been asked to decide whom they will send to this House. Universities as a whole are always reactionary, not only in economics and politics, but in other things. The contention that the universities, in giving men a certain amount of education, give them also better judgment, is not sound. We have had no proof of it in the past, even in this House, if I may say so with all deference to those who represent the universities. In matters political, even in the lectures given, the universities are always reactionary. It would be as much as a man's life were worth to tell the honest truth about economics and politics in the universities. The graduates are not qualified arty more than the average man to give a special judgment on political matters. I contest the view that universities produce a type of man who is specially qualified for endowment with a second vote.
It has been argued that the scavenger or the navvy is more qualified to vote, or indeed has a right to two votes rather than the man from the university. That is sheer nonsense. It is a difficult thing to impose upon a nation, but one feels that it is very necessary at times to enforce some form of examination before
any man or woman is entitled to vote at all. The franchise to-day is treated too lightly, and men and women vote too blindly. In this the universities are no exception. Appeals at election times are not appeals to the intellect, but are often pure claptrap and political catchwords, with the result that the universities do not show any marked degree of intelligence over the ordinary voter. If a man can reason, if he can trace cause to effect, and come to his own conclusions, he is entitled to vote, but that, because he has been to a university, he has a right to another vote, I deny. Because an inherent wrong has been done in the past is no reason why we should extend the wrong.

Mr. HARDIE: Most of those engaged in the Debate can claim to have had some connection with a university, however remote it might have been. I cannot do that. When I heard the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) speaking, it took me a considerable time to realise that he could ever have known what a university meant. His remarks were astounding and showed that he had not the mental capacity to treat logically the remarks previously made. He began to twist those remarks upside down in order to get something on which to found an argument. The hon. Member who had preceded him did not say and did not even insinuate that the man with the least education had the most right to vote; he was replying to an interjection from the other side by one who knew quite well what he was doing. The case put forward to-day is largely this, that while many Members agree that plural voting is wrong, it ought to be extended to Reading. I am surprised that hon. Members who claim to have had a good education should say such a thing. If a thing is bad we ought to get rid of it as soon as and wherever we can. If we try to prevent this stigma being put upon Reading students, they will regard us as their peal friends. No individual has a right to a plural vote. The hon. Member for Loyton was more than rude in his remarks. A man may claim many things after having been through a university, but I say, as one who has not been through a university, that I do not accept this kind of insult from a university man. The best evidence of the hon. Member having been to a university
would be for him to use the power given to him by education in such a way as not to insult other people who have not had the same educational advantage. I might have been rude if I had tried, but I have not tried. I have been attempting only to meet an argument which I think should not have been used.

Dr. DAVIES: On a point of personal explanation, I would say that I hope I made no reflection upon any man or class in this House. I was simply trying to follow the argument of another hon. Member who had given us the idea that if there were to be plural voting at all the lower the scale of education the more votes a man should have.

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. What remedy is open to a Member who

Mr. LAWSON: I did not say anything of the sort.

Dr. DAVIES: I understood the hon. Member to say that, the scavenger or the workman was entitled to greater voting power than the man who was educated and had graduated from a University. That is what I understood him to say, and it was to that I was replying. I had not the slightest intention of being rude to any Member, any individual or any class.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 45.

Division No. 164.]
AYES.
[1.56 p.m.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Allen, Lieut-Col. Sir William James
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hammersley, S. S.
Remer, J. R.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rentoul, G. S.


Atkinson, C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rye, F. G


Barr, J.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Salmon, Major I


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Berry, Sir George
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Briggs, J. Harold
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Kennedy, T.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smithers, Waldron


Cope, Major Sir William
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Storry-Deans, R.


Couper, J. B.
Loder, J. de V.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lumley, L. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dixey, A. C.
McLean, Major A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dunnico, H.
Makins, Brigadler-General E.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Morris, R. H.
Withers, John James


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Gower, Sir Robert
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Penny, Frederick George
Brigadler-General Clifton Brown and Mr. Somerville.




NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Lawson, John James
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Baker, Walter
Lee, F.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Barnes, A.
Lowth, T.
Sneil, Harry


Batey, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Stephen, Campbell


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
March, S.
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Montague, Frederick
Thurtle, Ernest


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Varley, Frank B.


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Viant, S. P.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Wallhead, Richard C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scrymgeour, E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hardie, George D.
Sexton, James
Whiteley, W.


Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis



Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shinwell, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Mr. Tinker and Mr. Kelly.

has, unfortunately, arrived after the doors of the Division Lobby have been
locked, in order to have his name recorded as voting against this Clause of the Bill?

The CHAIRMAN: None. He must fall back on the consolations of religion or philosophy.

Clause 2 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

SOLICITORS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill to amend the law relating to solicitors and to do away with a crying scandal which has caused hardship to a number of innocent persons. At the present time the solicitor who has been struck off the rolls for misconduct is able with impunity to continue to carry on his practice under the cover of some other name, and thereby many people who think they are dealing with a solicitor who is under the discipline of the Law Society are, in effect, dealing sometimes only with a man who can be called nothing but a swindler. The Clauses of this Bill, except for the definition Clause, are only two. The first one provides that no man who has thus been struck off the rolls for misconduct shall be allowed to practise without the consent of the Law Society, which is a statutory body, with statutory powers, and there is an appeal from them to the Master of the Rolls. The Law Society does not desire that men who have been struck off the rolls should be prevented from being able to earn a decent living. All that they desire is that they should not impose upon the public and do the work of a profession which necessarily has to be trusted, and should be manned by people who can be trusted, but it leaves him at liberty to work, so long as he works as an employé genuinely on those genuine terms. The first Clause is to prevent any solicitor from employing such person without the consent of the Law Society.
The second Clause makes it an offence for any man who has been thus struck
off to get employment, or to attempt to get employment, by means of this method of getting himself covered by another name, without divulging the fact that he has been struck off. The moderate penalty which is inserted in the Bill can only be inflicted if action is taken within six months, and action cannot be commenced except by or with the consent of the Attorney-General. This Bill was first introduced in the House of Lords, where it was very carefully thrashed out. It went through all its stages and came down to this House, unfortunately, too late to be parsed into law. Last Session it was introduced in this House under the 10 minutes rule, with an explanation being given of the effect of the Bill, and leave to introduce it was given without a dissentient voice. The Bill then went to a Standing Committee, where again it was very carefully considered, with the representative of the Government present, and it passed through Committee. It has, therefore, already been fully discussed in both Houses in a previous Session, and it comes before the House now in the same form. It is promoted by the Law Society, the statutory body charged by Parliament with the management and discipline of the solicitors' profession. It has been approved by the Law Officers of the Crown and the Lord Chancellor's Department, and I understand it has the approval of the Government generally. Moreover, the Government, I know, have received, as I have, formal notification from a In tuber of important commercial and business bodies in the country, urgently asking that this Bill may be passed into law in order to stop a crying scandal.
May I, in conclusion, as an illustration of what we want to stop, tell hon. Members of a thing which happened to me only three days ago in the precincts of this House? An ex-service man called upon me and asked me to give him professional assistance, because he had been swindled out of some £200 or £300, with which he had been persuaded to part in consideration of being given a job, for which he could get a salary. The whole thing turned out to be a fraud. There was no money to pay the salary, and his own money was lost. It was done to some extent through the medium of a company, and I said to him, "What do you know about this company? There must have been some solicitors concerned
in originally registering the company 12 months ago." He said, "Yes, but I do not think it is any use for me to communicate with the solicitor. The solicitor, as a matter of fact, apparently does no work at all. The work is entirely done by an old man there, who is really his managing clerk and who was at one time a solicitor, but has been struck off the rolls." That is the evil which we are trying to stop. These men who have been struck off for misconduct continue, in fact, to practise as solicitors and to assist rogues and rascals in getting the money of honest men. I therefore commend this Bill to the favourable attention of the House.

Sir H. SLESSER: I beg to second the Motion.
I think the House will realise that the intention of the Law Society in promoting this Bill and asking our consent is wholly to protect the public. Persons are not struck off the roll of solicitors unless they have been guilty of serious misconduct. Their cases are investigated by a statutory body composed of some of the most competent and highly-equipped members of the solicitors' profession, and there is an appeal to the High Court from the decisions of that body. We may, therefore, fairly assume that any solicitor who has been struck off the roll or suspended has been so struck off or suspended for adequate need. In these circumstances, it seems a pity and a misfortune that a person, who has been found incompetent, by reason of misconduct, to be entrusted with the functions of a solicitor, should be allowed to creep back really by a side door into the very occupation from which he has been excluded. The public are not able to distinguish nicely between a solicitor and a solicitor's managing clerk, and so on, and the illustration which the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) has given us seems to me a sufficient reason for proceeding with this Bill. The hon. Member did not mention the fact that this Bill is supported by no less an authority than the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), and so far as the support of another ex-Law Officer of the Crown is of any value to the passage of this Bill, I also think this Bill ought to become law, not only for the solicitor's profession, but
for those who practise the profession of barrister, who equally think it will be a protection for the public.

Mr. SEXTON: I support the principle embodied in this Bill, because it is a good, sound, trade union principle. At the same time, I wish to call attention to the fact that every name but one on the back of this Bill is that of an hon. Member who endeavoured, during the passage of the Trade Disputes Act, to deprive the trade unions of the very principle for which they are asking in this Bill. We asked for protection against a similar kind of evil against which the solicitor seeks to protect himself. The solicitors are asking us to protect them against the blackmailer, and I agree that they should be protected. Yet what happened during the Debate on the Trade Disputes Act? Every solicitor and lawyer on that side of the House supported the proposal forbidding trade unions the right to exclude an undesirable member who undersells his labour. What is sauce for the trade union goose is sauce for the lawyer gander, and I hope that when the opportunity occurs again, these legal gentlemen, having obtained this protection, will not deny it to trade unions.

Mr. RYE: Does the hon. Member, who has just spoken, seriously suggest that there is any comparison between the case of an individual member of a trade union who undersells his labour, and the case of a solicitor who has been convicted of a criminal offence, and, following that conviction, struck off the roll? Does he seriously ask the House to accept such a proposition? If he does, I suggest that his method of thought on this occasion is somewhat faulty. As a solicitor, I welcome this Bill, because there have been a number of cases where a person who has been struck off the roll, has restarted his profession under the cloak of a managership of another solicitor. It has been extremely difficult in the past, and in fact impossible, to deal with these cases. If it could be shown to the Law Society that the person who ostensibly is carrying on a solicitor's business, is a cipher, and that the actual business is being carried on by the man who has been struck off the roll, the Law Society has certain powers, but it is very difficult to prove a case of that description. By
this Bill that objectionable practice—because it is an objectionable one—will be put an end to. It will be within the right of the Law Society to give permission to enable anyone, who has been struck off or suspended, to obtain employment in a solicitor's office, and the Law Society, I have not the least doubt, will act reasonably and mercifully in these cases. They are fair-minded people, who, however, will not tolerate a state of affairs which enables someone who has misconducted himself, who has embezzled his clients' money, who has proved himself in every possible way unfitted to undertake the conduct of a lawyer's business, again to carry on that business under the cloak of someone else, and so deceive the people with whom he comes into contact. As a member of that profession, I am very glad to give the Bill my support.

Mr. MARCH: Like the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), I as a trade union official and a trade unionist for many years, welcome the proposal laid down in this Bill, and also the statement made by the hon. Member who spoke last. None of us desire to support anybody who has infringed his profession, and done something thoroughly wrong, and say that he should have the same rights as those who keep themselves straight. If that is good, as I say it is, for a profession which has got a high dignity to uphold—and everybody must admit that, taking things generally, the profession is a very high profession, and it is looked up to by a great number of people—the same thing applies to the trade unions. Trade union officials are usually held responsible for the conduct of the members, but it is a difficult job when there are so many thousands of members. When the Trade Disputes Act was passing through the House, everything that was bad was brought forward by the very people who are advocating this Bill, and it had a great influence on the views of the Members of the House. After all, the solicitors have a very strong trade union, which ought to be strong enough to do its own work without coming to the House, but I can see that there are likely to be people who have misconducted themselves, and eventually got struck off the roll, and not allowed to practice in the profession of which they have given many years of study. If a man is struck
off the roll he is known as a "wrong 'un," to put it in agricultural parlance.

Mr. E. BROWN: They say he is not.

Mr. MARCH: They say he is not, but he is a "wrong 'un." At all events, if he is not a "wrong 'un," they say, "He is not one of those people who is good enough to be associated with us in our profession." If he is not good enough to be associated with the profession, why strike him out? Evidently be is struck off because he is not good enough, and is not suited, and has not done what the profession desire him to do. He has evidently done something wrong, and has got disqualified and got struck out of the profession which is upheld by the Master of the Rolls. We learn that he has a right of appeal to the High Court, but he cannot go there for nothing. Evidently this Bill means to protect the profession.

Mr. RYE: And the public.

Mr. MARCH: And the public, of course, but that is the last consideration; the profession say, "Let us protect our profession first. Of course, if we protect our profession, and if this blackleg has not conformed to all the dictates of the association to which he is a member, and does something derogatory to our interests, we must have protection, because he is going on with his profession under a cloak end he is doing it to get a living from the public," only he is getting money from the public while not a member of the society or contributing to uphold the reputation of that society. That is wrong according to this Bill, and I agree that it is wrong, but the same thing is wrong in the case of a man who, when his colleagues decide they will not accept certain conditions of work, and hold out against them, agrees to accept them. You glorify him for going in. You say his colleagues have no right to dictate to him as to whether lie shall work or not. You glorify him and put haloes round his head; say he is a loyal man, that he is one of the best. When his colleagues, after they have made their sacrifice and are enabled to resume work, say, "He is not good enough to work with us," you say, "But he must; and you must not intimidate him; you must not even look at him askance."
When the Trade Unions Bill was going through we were, asked to consider the
possibility of this man feeling that he was going to be molested or interfered with. A mere look would be sufficient, according to some hon. Members opposite, to show that his life was in danger; and if any of his colleagues were passing down the street where he lived when he was standing at the door, and happened to look towards him—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member is entitled to draw a certain analogy, but we really cannot discuss the provisions of the Trade Unions Act on this Bill.

Mr. MARCH: I wanted to give another analogy, but as you have said I am infringing the Rules of the House I will not go further with it. I would like to say in conclusion that when we get the opportunity it is just as well to remind those who are so very anxious to safeguard themselves and do not mind about anybody else, that we on this side are not going to take up that attitude. We are going to adopt the advice of the Scriptures; we are going to turn the cheek, so that you may hit the other side; we are not going to oppose this Bill or divide against it—we like its ethics and its principles—and we hope that some day or other those of you who have got control will show the same spirit as we have displayed over this matter.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I certainly do not propose to follow the line of argument of my two hon. Friends, but I must say a word upon the machinery of this Bill. Hon. Members opposite know that on many occasions in the last four or five years I have opposed anything which would strengthen the position of an incorporation for professional purposes. The object of this Bill is in every way good. There is not an hon. Member who has had any experience, say, of the manipulations of company law who would not want to prevent a man who has been struck off the rolls for fraudulent practices from being used to do certain things in connection with the Companies Acts, to mention no other Statute. But I always feel a little anxious regarding the grant of considerable powers to incorporated bodies dealing with professions.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Perhaps the hon. Member does not realise that this body does not, strictly speaking, incorporate the profession. It is a body which is established by Act of Parliament and given judicial powers for an express purpose. It is only the first court, from which there is an appeal to another court. It is a judicial body, and not a body representing the profession.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I quite understand that, but it is a serious matter for individual citizens, even though they may have done wrong, if their fate lies in the hands of a private body to whom certain powers have been given by Act of Parliament. I admire the object of the Bill, and having regard to the rest of the Statutes which have been passed concerning the legal profession, I do not see there is any course open to the House except to pass the Bill in its present form; but I do suggest that we ought not to grant additional powers to bodies of this kind unless they are absolutely necessary. I should have been even more against the Bill but for the Amendment made in Standing Committee last year. The position of a person struck off the rolls and unable to obtain employment is difficult enough, and if he were to be subject to prosecution and a penalty of £10 for every offence in connection with his efforts to obtain employment, he would he in a serious position. The Amendment accepted last year that the prosecution should not rest with the Law Society, but must have the consent of the Attorney-General, is all to the good, and though I feel on this Bill very much as I have felt towards Bills dealing with architects, accountants and other professions, I do not see how we are to prevent in any other way the continuance of fraud. Therefore, I shall not oppose the Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. D. Herbert.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [13th June] as relates to Consolidation Bills be now considered."—[Mr. Penny.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee of Six Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session."—[Mr. Penny.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Brigadier-General Sir George Cockerill, Mr. Ernest Evans, Mr. Robert Hudson, Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, Sir Reginald Neville, and Sir Henry Slesser nominated Members of the Committee:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records":

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Mr. Penny.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes before Three o'Clock until Monday next, 18th June.